Bush's war

It seems that Mr Cecil Amato-Gauci (The Sunday Times, January 26) is more rabidly pro-Bush than the growing number of Americans who are protesting against the proposed war.

1. Is Mr Bush really apprehensive of war as anybody else? I very much doubt it. Is he totally adhering to the UN Security Council resolutions by sending thousands of young men to the front? Is he adhering by saying that he will attack "in spite" of any UN resolution? Is he adhering when Mr Powell says that they might as well "go it alone?"

2. That was a totally different scenario. Hitler wanted to control Europe. I do not believe that Saddam wants to expand and control all the Middle East. Rather, I believe that in spite of all the niceties, the US President just wants to have it his way - always (and meanwhile do what his father failed to do).

3. Mr Amato-Gauci says that peace can only be safeguarded through strength. I count myself as a freedom-loving person. I believe that millions of others in Europe count themselves freedom and peace lovers as well. But as Europe has shown during the last 50 years, peace is not safeguarded by strength. Rather, if one nation is so comprehensively superior, there is always the possibility to bully others. Vide Germany in the 1930s. No wonder old-timers said "might is right".

4. The US had better forget its meddling in Yugoslavia.

5. I am no TV expert. Maybe Mr Amato-Gauci has heard how US citizens, and not only, are questioning the "fact" that man landed on the moon and how we were relayed those memorable pictures in 1969. They are saying that these were a huge hoax and all was filmed in some studios.

Finally, regarding the crash course in contemporary history: it very much depends on who the lecturer is. You could have someone whose eyes only see stars and stripes and could deliver the classic example of the half-empty/half-full glass. That is why we are endowed with a brain: to sort out facts from propaganda.